New virus origin possibility

[jcb]

no outer space origins here...just a fauci funded
gain of function experiment that got loose...accidentally or intentionally.

No serious scientist claims with absolute certainty they know whether the virus had manmade or natural origins. Anyone claiming certainty is revealing their own confirmation bias.

[Moveon]

No serious scientist claims with absolute certainty they know whether the virus had manmade or natural origins. Anyone claiming certainty is revealing their own confirmation bias.

I saw where some science researchers did just that. And they found that the original virus was remarkably close to the ones found in nature. Remember MERS. The same thing happened with that virus. It was a mutation from a natural virus that already existed in nature.

[GeoFisher]

I saw where some science researchers did just that. And they found that the original virus was remarkably close to the ones found in nature. Remember MERS. The same thing happened with that virus. It was a mutation from a natural virus that already existed in nature.

There is no smoking gun for proof that it was created, but there is enough coincidental evidence to prove it.

The fact that you simply will not believe the gain of function research is astounding to me.

Hell the journal Nature published on that research in 2015.

Later,

Geo

[GeoFisher]

This is from journal Nature, 2015. THERE is a **** ton of stuff out there, that is very easy to read, and very easy to find. IT outlines exactly how the US, and China created corona virus with gain of function.

Something MoveON and others simply don't believe exists........Crazy if you ask me.




Lab-made coronavirus related to SARS can infect human cells.


An experiment that created a hybrid version of a bat coronavirus — one related to the virus that causes SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) — has triggered renewed debate over whether engineering lab variants of viruses with possible pandemic potential is worth the risks.

In an article published in Nature Medicine1 on 9 November, scientists investigated a virus called SHC014, which is found in horseshoe bats in China. The researchers created a chimaeric virus, made up of a surface protein of SHC014 and the backbone of a SARS virus that had been adapted to grow in mice and to mimic human disease. The chimaera infected human airway cells — proving that the surface protein of SHC014 has the necessary structure to bind to a key receptor on the cells and to infect them. It also caused disease in mice, but did not kill them.

Although almost all coronaviruses isolated from bats have not been able to bind to the key human receptor, SHC014 is not the first that can do so. In 2013, researchers reported this ability for the first time in a different coronavirus isolated from the same bat population2.

The findings reinforce suspicions that bat coronaviruses capable of directly infecting humans (rather than first needing to evolve in an intermediate animal host) may be more common than previously thought, the researchers say.

But other virologists question whether the information gleaned from the experiment justifies the potential risk. Although the extent of any risk is difficult to assess, Simon Wain-Hobson, a virologist at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, points out that the researchers have created a novel virus that “grows remarkably well” in human cells. “If the virus escaped, nobody could predict the trajectory,” he says.

Creation of a chimaera

The argument is essentially a rerun of the debate over whether to allow lab research that increases the virulence, ease of spread or host range of dangerous pathogens — what is known as ‘gain-of-function’ research. In October 2014, the US government imposed a moratorium on federal funding of such research on the viruses that cause SARS, influenza and MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome, a deadly disease caused by a virus that sporadically jumps from camels to people).

The latest study was already under way before the US moratorium began, and the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) allowed it to proceed while it was under review by the agency, says Ralph Baric, an infectious-disease researcher at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a co-author of the study. The NIH eventually concluded that the work was not so risky as to fall under the moratorium, he says.

But Wain-Hobson disapproves of the study because, he says, it provides little benefit, and reveals little about the risk that the wild SHC014 virus in bats poses to humans.

Other experiments in the study show that the virus in wild bats would need to evolve to pose any threat to humans — a change that may never happen, although it cannot be ruled out. Baric and his team reconstructed the wild virus from its genome sequence and found that it grew poorly in human cell cultures and caused no significant disease in mice.

“The only impact of this work is the creation, in a lab, of a new, non-natural risk,” agrees Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist and biodefence expert at Rutgers University in Piscataway, New Jersey. Both Ebright and Wain-Hobson are long-standing critics of gain-of-function research.

In their paper, the study authors also concede that funders may think twice about allowing such experiments in the future. "Scientific review panels may deem similar studies building chimeric viruses based on circulating strains too risky to pursue," they write, adding that discussion is needed as to "whether these types of chimeric virus studies warrant further investigation versus the inherent risks involved”.

Useful research

But Baric and others say the research did have benefits. The study findings “move this virus from a candidate emerging pathogen to a clear and present danger”, says Peter Daszak, who co-authored the 2013 paper. Daszak is president of the EcoHealth Alliance, an international network of scientists, headquartered in New York City, that samples viruses from animals and people in emerging-diseases hotspots across the globe.

Studies testing hybrid viruses in human cell culture and animal models are limited in what they can say about the threat posed by a wild virus, Daszak agrees. But he argues that they can help indicate which pathogens should be prioritized for further research attention.


Without the experiments, says Baric, the SHC014 virus would still be seen as not a threat. Previously, scientists had believed, on the basis of molecular modelling and other studies, that it should not be able to infect human cells. The latest work shows that the virus has already overcome critical barriers, such as being able to latch onto human receptors and efficiently infect human airway cells, he says. “I don't think you can ignore that.” He plans to do further studies with the virus in non-human primates, which may yield data more relevant to humans.

References
1
Menachery, V. D. et al. Nature Med. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nm.3985 (2015).

2
Ge, X.-Y. et al. Nature 503, 535–538 (2013).

[jcb]

This is from journal Nature, 2015. THERE is a **** ton of stuff out there, that is very easy to read, and very easy to find. IT outlines exactly how the US, and China created corona virus with gain of function.

Something MoveON and others simply don't believe exists........Crazy if you ask me.




Lab-made coronavirus related to SARS can infect human cells.


An experiment that created a hybrid version of a bat coronavirus — one related to the virus that causes SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) — has triggered renewed debate over whether engineering lab variants of viruses with possible pandemic potential is worth the risks.

In an article published in Nature Medicine1 on 9 November, scientists investigated a virus called SHC014, which is found in horseshoe bats in China. The researchers created a chimaeric virus, made up of a surface protein of SHC014 and the backbone of a SARS virus that had been adapted to grow in mice and to mimic human disease. The chimaera infected human airway cells — proving that the surface protein of SHC014 has the necessary structure to bind to a key receptor on the cells and to infect them. It also caused disease in mice, but did not kill them.

Although almost all coronaviruses isolated from bats have not been able to bind to the key human receptor, SHC014 is not the first that can do so. In 2013, researchers reported this ability for the first time in a different coronavirus isolated from the same bat population2.

The findings reinforce suspicions that bat coronaviruses capable of directly infecting humans (rather than first needing to evolve in an intermediate animal host) may be more common than previously thought, the researchers say.

But other virologists question whether the information gleaned from the experiment justifies the potential risk. Although the extent of any risk is difficult to assess, Simon Wain-Hobson, a virologist at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, points out that the researchers have created a novel virus that “grows remarkably well” in human cells. “If the virus escaped, nobody could predict the trajectory,” he says.

Creation of a chimaera

The argument is essentially a rerun of the debate over whether to allow lab research that increases the virulence, ease of spread or host range of dangerous pathogens — what is known as ‘gain-of-function’ research. In October 2014, the US government imposed a moratorium on federal funding of such research on the viruses that cause SARS, influenza and MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome, a deadly disease caused by a virus that sporadically jumps from camels to people).

The latest study was already under way before the US moratorium began, and the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) allowed it to proceed while it was under review by the agency, says Ralph Baric, an infectious-disease researcher at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a co-author of the study. The NIH eventually concluded that the work was not so risky as to fall under the moratorium, he says.

But Wain-Hobson disapproves of the study because, he says, it provides little benefit, and reveals little about the risk that the wild SHC014 virus in bats poses to humans.

Other experiments in the study show that the virus in wild bats would need to evolve to pose any threat to humans — a change that may never happen, although it cannot be ruled out. Baric and his team reconstructed the wild virus from its genome sequence and found that it grew poorly in human cell cultures and caused no significant disease in mice.

“The only impact of this work is the creation, in a lab, of a new, non-natural risk,” agrees Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist and biodefence expert at Rutgers University in Piscataway, New Jersey. Both Ebright and Wain-Hobson are long-standing critics of gain-of-function research.

In their paper, the study authors also concede that funders may think twice about allowing such experiments in the future. "Scientific review panels may deem similar studies building chimeric viruses based on circulating strains too risky to pursue," they write, adding that discussion is needed as to "whether these types of chimeric virus studies warrant further investigation versus the inherent risks involved”.

Useful research

But Baric and others say the research did have benefits. The study findings “move this virus from a candidate emerging pathogen to a clear and present danger”, says Peter Daszak, who co-authored the 2013 paper. Daszak is president of the EcoHealth Alliance, an international network of scientists, headquartered in New York City, that samples viruses from animals and people in emerging-diseases hotspots across the globe.

Studies testing hybrid viruses in human cell culture and animal models are limited in what they can say about the threat posed by a wild virus, Daszak agrees. But he argues that they can help indicate which pathogens should be prioritized for further research attention.


Without the experiments, says Baric, the SHC014 virus would still be seen as not a threat. Previously, scientists had believed, on the basis of molecular modelling and other studies, that it should not be able to infect human cells. The latest work shows that the virus has already overcome critical barriers, such as being able to latch onto human receptors and efficiently infect human airway cells, he says. “I don't think you can ignore that.” He plans to do further studies with the virus in non-human primates, which may yield data more relevant to humans.

References
1
Menachery, V. D. et al. Nature Med. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nm.3985 (2015).

2
Ge, X.-Y. et al. Nature 503, 535–538 (2013).

Geo, when you say this piece "outlines exactly how the US, and China created corona virus with gain of function," are you referring to Sars-COV-2? If so, could you help me find the text that says that?

[Moveon]

Geo, when you say this piece "outlines exactly how the US, and China created corona virus with gain of function," are you referring to Sars-COV-2? If so, could you help me find the text that says that?

Geo is possessed with Right Wing Republican ideologies and will believe anything these days.

Covid or Sars Cov-2 was made by nature. Unless China is continuing to do GOF research and making new variants and spreading them all around the world.

The best of the best scientists who study viruses say that nature created SARS CoV-2 just like it created the original SARS and MERS and other viruses.

There is not gof research.

[jcb]

Covid or Sars Cov-2 was made by nature.

Also 100% unproven.

Dang, y'all are just reinforcing my point. No one can claim certainty. The world's top scientists are clearly divided.

[GeoFisher]

Geo is possessed with Right Wing Republican ideologies and will believe anything these days.

Covid or Sars Cov-2 was made by nature. Unless China is continuing to do GOF research and making new variants and spreading them all around the world.

The best of the best scientists who study viruses say that nature created SARS CoV-2 just like it created the original SARS and MERS and other viruses.

There is not gof research.

While this article does not state Gain of Function, the supporting articles talks almost exclusively about it.

I will post those too.

You will have to trust the links.......I doubt you will go to them. They are safe.....

Trust me

https://www.nature.com/articles/nrmicro3405
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4996883/


There are a ton of articles. Simply search Journal Nature 2015 Gain of Function.

We OUTLAWED it in 2015, and the labs simply moved the research to CHINA, and created the Wuhan Lab.

You my friend, have your head so far in the sand, you can probably visit that Wuhan lab first hand.

Later,

Geo

[Devils Horse]

While this article does not state Gain of Function, the supporting articles talks almost exclusively about it.

I will post those too.

You will have to trust the links.......I doubt you will go to them. They are safe.....

Trust me

https://www.nature.com/articles/nrmicro3405
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4996883/


There are a ton of articles. Simply search Journal Nature 2015 Gain of Function.

We OUTLAWED it in 2015, and the labs simply moved the research to CHINA, and created the Wuhan Lab.

You my friend, have your head so far in the sand, you can probably visit that Wuhan lab first hand.

Later,

Geo

I tried to read those articles, really I did. Made me fall asleep quicker than a Cisco SDA seminar. Almost made it though.

[ZoraSpook]

DISAGREEMENTS:
1. Origin
2. Severity
3. Vaccines use or not
4. Vaccines- effectiveness
5. Methods to reduce spread
6. Ability to reduce spread
7 Mask effectiveness
8. Mask mandates
9. Freedom vs responsibility
10. Economic impacts
11. If it caused supply chain issues
12. Kids in or out of school
13. Kids mask or not
14. Which political party is most medically qualified since we all know viruses only exist to win elections

Now rocket scientists: Lets spend the next 3 weeks arguing about the second half. The Agreements. We should argue with limitless energy about what we ought to agree on. Ready.....you have 21 days starting now.......and GO!

I mean let’s not waste any friggin time actually fixing this crap as a unified effort, and then argue in the “ after-action report”. Heck no. Let’s sit around doing nothing while we argue on to ad nauseam and to infinity and beyond!

[Moveon]

DISAGREEMENTS:
1. Origin
2. Severity
3. Vaccines use or not
4. Vaccines- effectiveness
5. Methods to reduce spread
6. Ability to reduce spread
7 Mask effectiveness
8. Mask mandates
9. Freedom vs responsibility
10. Economic impacts
11. If it caused supply chain issues
12. Kids in or out of school
13. Kids mask or not
14. Which political party is most medically qualified since we all know viruses only exist to win elections

Now rocket scientists: Lets spend the next 3 weeks arguing about the second half. The Agreements. We should argue with limitless energy about what we ought to agree on. Ready.....you have 21 days starting now.......and GO!

I mean let’s not waste any friggin time actually fixing this crap as a unified effort, and then argue in the “ after-action report”. Heck no. Let’s sit around doing nothing while we argue on to ad nauseam and to infinity and beyond!

Kids here in school don't have to wear mask but the county is in the RED. We won't get rid of this virus if everyone keeps doing the wrong things.

[ZoraSpook]

Kids here in school don't have to wear mask but the county is in the RED. We won't get rid of this virus if everyone keeps doing the wrong things.

Well said.

KY 1st peak wave of Covid Apr 21 -just over 4000 cases a day. But we learned and masked and distanced, and got on vaccines

May-August 21: We argued about vaccines and masks, and the numbers started creeping.

2nd Wave Oct 21 ran up to just over 5,000 cases a day. Different strain

So we masked and distanced, and argued some more about vaccines.

Now we are in the 3rd Wave, and just climbed over 6,000 cases a day. And yep, it is another different strain.

In April 2021 we found a hole in our boat and slowed the water coming in, and having done so we now have spent the last 9-10 months finding new ways to drill new holes in the bottom. All while about 25-30% of our boat crew sat on their butts and complained about their feet getting wet and arguing about how the water in the boat actually got there.....while staring at the holes in the bottom.

Definition of stupid:
1. in a state of stupor; dazed; stunned; stupefied

2. lacking normal intelligence or understanding; slow-witted; dull

3. showing or resulting from a lack of normal intelligence; foolish; irrational
a stupid idea

4. dull and boring; tiresome [a stupid party]
also used informally as a generalized term of disapproval a stupid hat

Albert Einstein: "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result."